Blog Amazing things that
bring positive results

Washington (CNN) – In 1994, Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders convinced GOP candidates to sign the “Contract with America,” a document of conservative principles that included a pledge the House would vote on these issues.

The contract provided GOP candidates with succinct talking points on the campaign trail – ideas that resonated with a restless electorate – and congressional Democrats were swept out of power that year.

Fast forward to 2010 and Gingrich is promoting a second contract, except the newest incarnation was not drafted by him, party officials or political insiders. The “Contract From America” was organized by the Tea Party Patriots, an organization that describes itself as an advocate for “grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.”

My husband and I attended every Tea Party held on the Minnesota capitol steps. But you don’t represent us! Where is the mention of ending abortion, gay marriage, and bringing God and prayer back into the schools in this ‘contract’? There is no unequivocal statement giving God the credit for our freedom, or bringing him into this picture at all–which leaves us Christians OUT!!!!!

Thomas

Adrienne,

With all due respect for your belief in God and religion, there are many theories as to the source of man’s liberty and freedom–Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Madison, and countless philosophers have been debating it for centuries.

From my readings of this organization’s principles, it is about adherence to the Constitution, the free-market, and economic conservatism. Just as there was no place in the Constitution for “bringing God and prayer” into schools, it should not be part of this organization’s principles.

Though I believe you and your husband likely agree with most of what this organization advocates, your objections to the omission of God and Christian beliefs would align you more with traditional social conservatism and the principles of the GOP.

I would hope you could support this organization without requiring the inclusion of your personal religious beliefs in its principles. But if you feel strongly that those religious tenets are a requirement (“you don’t represent us!”), then perhaps you’re better off joining the GOP.

http://armsofjustice.com Rocky Justice

Thomas.

All due respect for your politically correct philosophy, the one and only Constitution of the United States of America is not ambiguous as to where “We the People” receive our rights. The Constitution being the Ultimate Law of the Land makes it is irrelevant what your other named philosophers thought are.
Just as stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “We the People” are created by and receive our rights from “Our Creator”. The Bill of Rights guarantees that these rights cannot be rescinded by the federal government, and that all federal government rights and powers come from “We the People” not the other way round.
Just as the first amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion. It also guarantees your right of freedom to practice the religion of atheism, agnosticism, global warming science or whatever, but does not allow the federal government to pick one over any other.
If you believe, that a belief in God and religious philosophy had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution, I suggest you try reading more of the rightings from the founding fathers. Most were deeply religious men some were not, but all agreed to which direction the power came from. Just like the Tea Party movement, from humanity up. Given from the creator to “We the People” to the states, and then the federal institution. Not from “The State” to the states and on down to the people. A belief in that would align one more with the progressive movement.
I believe we have a real problem with this idea from our current administration. Heck, it could be the founding reason for the Tea Party movement.

Todd Wolf

Are we a Society of Contracts or are we a Society of Status?
We were conceived in Liberty as a self-governing nation of the People, by the People, and for the People who were endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by each individuals standard of value, ways, and means. We recognize the need for the smallest, least intrusive form of government that subordinates order to freedom, a Republican form of government defined and limited by The Constitution. A government whose primary function is to preserve the peace, defend the country, provide a mechanism whereby individuals can adjudicate their disputes, and protect individuals from being coerced by other individuals.
The Contract from America list is limited by its attempt to conclusively define significant and relevant issues that in themselves are the consequences of a government that has broken from the moeurs of The Constitution. The contract will be implied by the reasonable actions taken to audit this government’s over-reaching powers, authority, and functions and the prudent actions taken by the authority vested in We the People by the Constitution of the United States of America to eliminate all of those that do not meet the requirements of being Constitutional, Moral, Necessary, and Affordable.

condor655

I will not vote for The Contract From America because it says nothing about protecting our borders and deporting illegal aliens.

Thomas

@Rocky,
I appreciate your viewpoint, but you’re mistaken on a few things. First, I’m far from politically correct and abhor the notion. Second, I’m actually quite well read on the founding documents and the philosophers that formed the basis of their thinking.

Third, you said, “If you believe that a belief in God and religious philosophy had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution, ….”. Well, I do not believe that. God was indeed part of the founding fathers belief and the Constitution. My point to Adrienne was that _this organization_ (Tea Party Patriots, and this Contract from America) appears not to have religion and God as a tenet. I think the organization can support our common goals of smaller government, freedom, and the like without getting into the religion/secular discussion at all.

Clearly whether you believe in God or not does not affect your opinion on, or ability to reduce, the size of government. I.e. Adrienne won’t achieve a smaller government with God on her side.

I probably agree with you and Adrienne on 99% of the issues we’re facing in this country. Lets move ahead together on that and not refuse to help (Adrienne’s “You don’t represent me!”) because the platform doesn’t include a religion requirement. (In the same way that the founding fathers didn’t require religion for its citizens to participate in politics).

Include all–and lets concentrate on the real problems together.

Thomas

Excellent point, Todd. Thanks for joining the discussion.

Sharen Bunn

Thomas
The last I saw, we were one nation under God. In God we trust is on our money. DO NOT TAKE OUT OF AMERICA!!!!

Bart Cook

The United States Constitution prohibits only the Federal Government from making laws about religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit any state from doing this. Each state should be able to decide for itself such things as whether there can be prayer in school, or the ten commandments displayed in a state courtroom. This is not a power granted to the federal government.

admin

The online discussion forum is now live. Join the debate… click on the blue “Discussion” button in the top right of the sidebar.

Stay Informed…

Complete the form below to receive periodic updates on all of our grassroots initiatives.